Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,751.
Townsend v. Northern Crown Bank - (1914) 49 SCR 394 - 1914-02-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
Sir William Meredith C.J., who tried this action, was of the opinion that [...] Solicitor for the appellant: William Laidlaw. Solicitors for the respondents: Arnoldi & Grierson.
-
1,752.
Doran v. Jewell - (1914) 49 SCR 88 - 1914-02-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Williams v. Irvine (22 Can. S.C.R. 108); Hyde v. Lindsay (29 Can. S.C.R. 99) and Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving ([1905] A.C. 369) followed. [...] Caldwell, contra, cited Williams v. Irvine[3]; Hyde v. Lindsay[4]; Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving 2. [...] ANGLIN J.—This motion is concluded adversely to the appellant by the authority of Williams v. Irvine3, and Hyde v. Lindsay4.
-
1,753.
Lapointe v. Messier - (1914) 49 SCR 271 - 1914-02-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
I do not think the transaction in question here could be brought within the exceptions as stated by Lord Justice Fry, by Sir Frederick Pollock, or by Sir William Anson. [...] Sir William Anson puts it in a slightly different way. He speaks of contracts procured “by strong pressure.” And Sir Frederick Pollock sums up the exceptions as consisting of agreements made in [...] Browning v. Morris[26], at page 793, per Lord Mansfield; Williams v. Hedley[27].
-
1,754.
Wadsworth v. Canadian Railway Accident Ins. Co. - (1914) 49 SCR 115 - 1914-02-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
See William Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Victoria Lumber and Mfg. Co.[8] Hellmuth K.C. and McConnell for the respondents referred to Mendl v. Ropner & Co.[9], and contended that the finding of the trial concurred in by both appellate courts below must be accepted, and being accepted the judgment in appeal must stand. [...] As put by Watkin Williams J., in the Lawrence Case[41]:— It is essential * * * that it should be made out that the fit was a cause in the sense of being the proximate and immediate cause of the death before the company are exonerated.
-
1,755.
Bell v. Grand Trunk Rway. Co. - (1913) 48 SCR 561 - 1913-12-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsEvidence
Although as a general rule where a plaintiff relies upon the breach by the defendant of a statutory provision which imposes a duty, but contains an exception, he must allege and shew that the defendant is not within the exception, Spieres v. Parker[12], at page 145; Williams v. The East India Co.[13]; Dwarris on Statutes
-
1,756.
McPhee v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Ry. Co. - (1913) 49 SCR 43 - 1913-11-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
In Williams v. Birmingham Battery and Metal Co.[12], Lord Justice A. L. Smith says, at page 344, that the defence summarized by the maxim volenti non fit injuria is that the employee has [...] In Williams' Case[21], it is expressly stated by Romer L.J., at page 345, that the circumstance that the servant has entered: [...] The same view is expressed by Romer L.J. in Williams v. The Birmingham Battery and Metal Co.[24]:
-
1,757.
Como v. Herron - (1913) 49 SCR 1 - 1913-11-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsSecurities
William Stewart Herron (Plaintiff) Respondent 1913: October 14, 15; 1913: November 10.
-
1,758.
Stephenson v. Gold Medal Furniture Mfg. Co. - (1913) 48 SCR 497 - 1913-10-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
James Albert Stephenson, Tena Stephenson, William Stephenson and Margaret Stephenson (Defendants) [...] In the trial court judgment was awarded against two of the defendants, James Albert Stephenson and William Stephenson, in these terms:— [...] And this court doth further order and adjudge that the said James Albert Stephenson and William Stephenson do pay to the plaintiff its costs of this action.
-
1,759.
In Re Companies - (1913) 48 SCR 331 - 1913-10-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
“A large admission” Lord Herschell called it in a subsequent case; page 168 of the stenographer’s note of the argument in the Liquor Prohibition Appeal, printed in 1895 by William Brown & Co. He relied on the machinery for bringing the Act into force as shewing that the subject was dealt with as a local matter.
-
1,760.
Merritt v. City of Toronto - (1913) 48 SCR 1 - 1913-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsMaritime law
William H. Merritt (Plaintiff) Appellant; and The City of Toronto (Defendant) Respondent. [...] Solicitor for the respondent: William Johnston. [1] 27 Ont. L.R. 1.
-
1,761.
Toronto Railway Co. v. Fleming - (1913) 47 SCR 612 - 1913-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
William Fleming (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1913: April 8; 1913: May 6. [...] At the second trial before Sir William Meredith C.J.C.P., the jury again found for the plaintiff.
-
1,762.
Chambers v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. - (1913) 48 SCR 162 - 1913-04-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Edward Bushnell Chambers and William Robert George Phair Appellants;
-
1,763.
Cross v. Carstairs - (1913) 47 SCR 559 - 1913-02-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Charles William Cross (Respondent) J Appellant; and William Frederick Wallace Carstairs (Petitioner) Respondent
-
1,764.
Pickles v. China Mutual Ins. Co. - (1913) 47 SCR 429 - 1913-02-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
J. William Smith (Defendant) Appellant; and The China Mutual Insurance Company (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
-
1,765.
Kline Bros. & Co. v. Dominion Fire Ins. Co. - (1912) 47 SCR 252 - 1912-12-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
Lewis v. Read[4]; Williams v. North China Ins. Co.[5] Even if the New York firm were agents of respondents they could not license a removal of the stock insured without express authority in writing.
-
1,766.
Hesseltine v. Nelles - (1912) 47 SCR 230 - 1912-12-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
A.J. Nelles and William Newman (Plaintiffs) Respondents. 1912: November 11; 1912: December 10. [...] The referee having reported a certain amount of money as representing the quantum of damages that the company should pay, an appeal from his decision was brought before the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir William Meredith, who varied the report as to the amount. [...] Notice of appeal was then given to this court and later on a motion was made before the registrar to affirm the jurisdiction of this court to hear the appeals, first from the judgment of 1908, secondly, from the order of Sir William Meredith given on the 23rd of January, 1911, and thirdly, from the judgment of the
-
1,767.
Fraser v. Imperial Bank of Canada - (1912) 47 SCR 313 - 1912-11-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsFinancial institutions
moneys now due or hereafter to accrue due to the said William Garson from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, [...] all my claim and demand for moneys due or hereafter to accrue due to the said William Garson from the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. [...] It may be observed, however, that there is an interesting application of the principle involved in West v. Williams[39], at page 143.
-
1,768.
Periard v. Bergeron - (1912) 47 SCR 289 - 1912-11-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Noel Bergeron and William Rickson (Defendants) Respondents. 1912: October 11; 1912: November 11.
-
1,769.
Foss Lumber Co. v. The King - (1912) 47 SCR 130 - 1912-10-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsCustoms and excise
Speaking of the way in which the revenue laws are to be interpreted, Sir William Ritchie said, in The Queen v. The J. C. Ayer Company[10], at pages 270 and 271:—
-
1,770.
Newberry v. Langan - (1912) 47 SCR 114 - 1912-10-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
John F. Langan, William B. Ryan and Harry P. Simpson (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
-
1,771.
Serling v. Levine - (1912) 47 SCR 103 - 1912-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
William Levine (Defendant) Respondent. 1912: May 15, 17; 1912: October 7.
-
1,772.
In re Marriage Laws - (1912) 46 SCR 132 - 1912-06-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
There is a very curious bit of advice which was given in 1722 and which will be found reported in 2 Peere Williams’s Reports[56]. [...] The Master of the Rolls, Sir William Grant, in The Attorney-General v. Stewart[84], is reported as citing, apparently with approval, a passage from Blackstone, vol. 1, page 100. [...] On that occasion the following opinion was given by Sir Frederick Pollock and Sir William Webb Follett (a lawyer second to none of the great lawyers of his time):—
-
1,773.
Annable v. Conventry - (1912) 46 SCR 573 - 1912-06-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
William J. White was the beneficial owner of the land, it having been willed to him by his father. [...] The latter’s son, William J. White, was the beneficial owner and devisee under his father’s will. [...] As there were no unpaid debts she was, in effect, a bare trustee for her son William J. White.
-
1,774.
Bentley v. Nasmith - (1912) 46 SCR 477 - 1912-03-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsSecurities
And especially so as he has failed to contradict or explain the evidence of Williams, who tells of the respondent saying some one had given a tip or hint.
-
1,775.
City of Vancouver v. Cummings - (1912) 46 SCR 457 - 1912-03-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
William Cummings (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1912: February 23; 1912: March 21.